Human Embryos and the Origins of Life
As a result of a new study, Stanford researchers have found a way to predict which human embryos will have the best shot of survival. An unnamed Ricochet member has some reactions to this news:
The results of this study are of practical significance for parents contemplating in vitro fertilization, the procedure that gave us our two children (Dr. Cedars, described in the article, was our IVF doctor). This is because, while most parents are keenly, even desperately interested in having one child, practical and financial realities make them leery of multiples. Twins are fairly manageable, but it gets a lot harder with triplets or more.
For parents who aren't opposed to abortion, the practice is to transfer into the uterus three, four, or more embryos/blastocysts so as to maximize the chances for at least one successful birth. If more than one blastocyst implants, then the parents can engage in "selective reduction" -- using ultrasound to try to guess which implanted blastocyst is most likely to make it, and then aborting the others.
Parents who, like us, would never even consider abortion, only transfer as many blastocysts as we think we can handle, and freeze the rest. This is more time-consuming and expensive, but it's our only considered alternative.
Better assessment of each blastocyst's viability decreases the odds of having high multiples. For example, if two of your blastocysts are of high quality and four of low quality, you can transfer one or two high quality blastocysts immediately and freeze the rest. Then, for the next attempt, you can transfer the remaining four, low quality blastocysts. In the unlikely event that you end up with four implantations, you can carry them to term and either (a) count your blessings and deal with the challenges; or (b) adopt some of them out.
Our Ricochet member also notes that the SFGate article linked to above describes the author of the study, Dr. Renee Reijo Pera, as the director of Stanford's Center for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Education. Yet it quotes her as saying:
The authors, we sat around in a group watching the first video, and we said, 'My goodness, that's beautiful.' If you watch the videos, this is how life begins. The fascinating thing for me is that this is our origin.
In response, our member states:
It's very hard for me to understand how she reconciles her apparently acute understanding of life's beginnings in the embryo with her center's destruction of the same.
- Comment (18)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Human Embryos and the Origins of Life
Diane Ellis, Ed.:
In response, our member states:
They acknowledge a human life without acknowledging a human person, and assert that only a person has a right to life.
They usually believe, without deep consideration, that personhood requires cognition ("I think, therefore I am."). That's why people who support abortion usually also support euthanasia for invalids. They fail to answer how an adult chimpanzee can demonstrate more cognition than a human baby and yet the human baby cannot be killed.
I believe personhood is not found in any one trait. It begins as something basic, expands and increases and complexity, and can even retract due to old age or injury. Infinitely more identifies an adult as an individual person than does a newborn child. Identity is both internal (DNA, physical attributes) and external (family relations, friendships, loyalties, etc), both received and chosen.
As for our inherent value, it comes from God's love, which is indiscriminately offered and unbreakable.
Jun '10
Re: Human Embryos and the Origins of Life
Millions of women abort healthy babies while some different millions of women are trying anything and everything to have a baby, naturally and unnaturally. Does anybody see a more sensible solution here?
Edited on Oct 4, 2010 at 11:27amJul '10
Re: Human Embryos and the Origins of Life
Aaron Miller
Diane Ellis, Ed.:
In response, our member states:
They acknowledge a human life without acknowledging a human person, and assert that only a person has a right to life.
You were a blastocyst. It is a stage in human development. You can believe what you want, but as someone brilliant said: "You can call a dog a chair all you want, but that doesn't make it so."
As for the Ricochet member: Ah, eugenics. Soft gauzy film-it-through-vaseline eugenics, but eugenics nonetheless. Margaret Sanger would be proud.
May '10
Re: Human Embryos and the Origins of Life
Michael Tee
As for the Ricochet member: Ah, eugenics. Soft gauzy film-it-through-vaseline eugenics, but eugenics nonetheless. Margaret Sanger would be proud. · Oct 4 at 12:22pm
Not to mention Peter Singer.
Aug '10
Re: Human Embryos and the Origins of Life
Yes, I was a human blastocyst, just like I was a human teenager and not a amphibian blastocyst and then an equine teenager. One can call a human blastocyst a mere blastocyst all one wants, but that doesn't make it not a human being.
Edited on Oct 4, 2010 at 1:24pmMay '10
Re: Human Embryos and the Origins of Life
Three clergymen meet on the street. They start talking shop and the conversation turns to the beginnings of life.
The Presbyterian minister says, "It's clear. Life begins at birth. There's no one there before that."
The Catholic priest says, "Wait a minute. The child that is born was never anything other than human. Life begins at conception."
And so they argue back and forth. Finally they turn to the third man and say, "Rabbi, you're a man of wisdom. When do you say that life begins?"
The Jewish rabbi strokes his beard in thought, and then says, "Life begins when the dog dies and the kids move out."
Hope I added a smile to your day. ;-)
Jun '10
Re: Human Embryos and the Origins of Life
Tom Lindholtz: Three clergymen meet on the street. They start talking shop and the conversation turns to the beginnings of life.
The Presbyterian minister says, "It's clear. Life begins at birth. There's no one there before that."
The Catholic priest says, "Wait a minute. The child that is born was never anything other than human. Life begins at conception."
And so they argue back and forth. Finally they turn to the third man and say, "Rabbi, you're a man of wisdom. When do you say that life begins?"
The Jewish rabbi strokes his beard in thought, and then says, "Life begins when the dog dies and the kids move out."
Hope I added a smile to your day. ;-) · Oct 4 at 2:22pm
You mean there are Christian and Muslim rabbis.
Aug '10
Re: Human Embryos and the Origins of Life
Do many not support abortion/euthanasia but consider the death penalty an abomination?Is there any rational explanation for this?
May '10
Re: Human Embryos and the Origins of Life
Charles, I can't make heads or tails of that discrepancy. Perhaps it's just a contrarian view, since many conservatives support the death penalty. They do like to compare that to abortion and play gotcha.
Aug '10
Re: Human Embryos and the Origins of Life
Hey ! They're wrong. How can forty million dead each year be wrong ?
or Hey ! They're wrong, how can forty million wrong each year be dead ?
Jul '10
Re: Human Embryos and the Origins of Life
Red & Black Redneck
Yes, I was a human blastocyst, just like I was a human teenager and not a amphibian blastocyst and then an equine teenager. One can call a human blastocyst a mere blastocyst all one wants, but that doesn't make it not a human being. · Oct 4 at 1:19pm
Edited on Oct 04 at 01:24 pm
Exactly. You make my point exactly. A blastocyst is a human being.
Aug '10
Re: Human Embryos and the Origins of Life
Aaron,Thanks for your reply (#9). I must say I'm somewhat troubled by your analysis (#1), in particular by the proposition that personhood can "retract due to old age or injury"- seems to me like a short cut to a very slippery slope.And does reliance solely on God's love for the inherent value of the individual not diminish the entirely rational yet purely secular pro-life arguments, and give the other side an excuse to categorize those arguments as religious and therefore somehow less rational? I believe that a strong pro-life case can be made on both religious and secular grounds.
May '10
Re: Human Embryos and the Origins of Life
If someone really doesn't think an embryo is a human life, it hangs together logically. It then becomes an argument of facts and semantics -- at what stage does human life begin?
The irony is that those on the generally pro-abortion left preen themselves on their scientific enlightenment, yet it's science that keeps making the beginnings of life so much clearer. It's as if the left won't acknowledge a blastocyst's humanity until it has its own Facebook account.
Aug '10
Re: Human Embryos and the Origins of Life
Michael: I am glad I edited my response because at first I thought your position was the opposite of what it apparently is. Unnecessary foot in my mouth avoided.
Aaron: I agree with Charles Mark above. How exactly does one's personhood retract with old age or injury? The first part of post 1 seems to argue the opposite.
Ottoman: Since I have left Facebook, maybe I have committed Facebookicide? It's not a human until it has its own Facebook account. Hilarious.
May '10
Re: Human Embryos and the Origins of Life
To say that one's personhood can retract is not to suggest that a person's inherent value can be diminished. Far less defines a toddler as an individual than a middle-aged person, but both are equally valuable as human beings. Actually, we often consider children more valuable than adults because children have not had an opportunity to grow and choose. But all human beings are inherently precious.
Alzheimer's is an example of retraction. My grandpa had Alzheimer's. I watched his personality erode to that of a toddler... less, even. In the end, he recognized no one and couldn't even control his bowels. The traits that once defined him disappeared, as did the memories which are an important part of any personality.
Another example is retirement. When we retire, our professions cease to be a pivotal aspect of how others define us. By retraction, I mean that one's identity becomes simpler in some way.
Charles, a strong argument can be made against all abortions on secular grounds, but I find the religious argument to be stronger. It's hard convincing people that a microscopic organism is fully (not potentially) human without appeal to the soul.
May '10
Re: Human Embryos and the Origins of Life
Another reason not to discount the religious argument is that most people who have abortions, like most people in general, believe in God.
Even in non-theistic cultures, a vast majority of people believe in an afterlife and spirits. In Asia, people commonly make ritualistic appeals to their ancestors.
In any case, abortions are more often driven by fear than by logic. Having a child is scary for everyone. Some charities have had success in showing the mothers love and helping them to feel secure financially and socially.
Law (where logic ideally plays a stronger role) generally reflects culture. Social progress on abortions can probably be made more through individual interactions than through law.
Edited on Oct 5, 2010 at 9:44amMay '10
Re: Human Embryos and the Origins of Life
One last point. When my grandpa was dying of Alzheimer's and no longer knew who I was, I didn't love him only for who he used to be. I loved him for who he still was.
Euthanasia and abortion are two sides of the same coin. If we can love a baby without requiring anything from that baby, then we should be able to love an old person who no longer responds to the world.
Aug '10
Re: Human Embryos and the Origins of Life
I agree. My concern with your use of "personhood" is that it could lead toward the same thinking as Peter Singer's Personism. A very utilitarian view of human-ness dependent upon what that human can "contribute" to the "common good." A baby, or an invalid, limited in their inherent capacity to contribute, are likewise limited in their rights that inhere in them. A far cry indeed from being "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."